Welcome to St. Paul

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 19:49


IMG_0392

The soundtrack of this convention so far is helicopter noise, kind of like the final scenes in Goodfellas.  Amy Goodman has apparently been arrested (video is here), and the police are detaining lawyers and medics as well as people doing actual property damage.  

The spin operation is starting, though calling it spin really does a disservice to the term.  I just got back from a press conference with Mayor Chris Coleman (no relationship to Norm Coleman) and the chief of police, John Harrington, in which Harrington lauded the heroism and professionalism of the police department in the face of mass criminal behavior.  The event included every stupid police press conference cliche, from stuttering overly bureaucratic excuses to sycophantic journalists asking about damage estimates and calling him 'chief' to get his attention to heroic uniformed sternly worded descriptions of frightening protesters throwing rocks at officers.  The end literally was the PR officer walking out of the room in a dramatic huff.

The city is on ridiculous lockdown, with humvees in the streets, officers patrolling with shotguns and machine guns, and the national guard out.  I expected Harrington to announce that he has not yet ascertained the identity of the Batman but that he is working hard and the city of Gotham is safe.  Video soon, and a full set of pictures is here.

IMG_0391

IMG_0387
Matt Stoller :: Welcome to St. Paul

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Welcome to St. Paul | 62 comments
"Mass Criminal Behavior" (4.00 / 2)
John Harrington is right. Surrounding a lot of people taking a stroll and carrying signs with an army of guys wearing riot gear and carrying guns, and then forcing the mass of people to the ground, via bull-horn and intimidating heavy artillery, is "mass criminal behavior". He might not know that right now, but he just might come to know it in the very near future.
Shocked But Not Surprised (4.00 / 4)
After what went on in New York at the 2004 GOP Convention nothing surprises me anymore.  To a great extent the concept of preventitive detention is widely accepted.  In the name of security, anything goes...and so it goes (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut).
Also not surprised because of Denver (4.00 / 1)
I didn't hear a whole lot of talk about the security theater in Denver - and there was quite a bit. Police-state-mode is a function of conventions these days, not a Republican thing.
I'm not talking about any journalist arrests here - but the whole filling the streets with cops with semi-automatic weapons thing was there too.  
[ Parent ]
Chris Coleman is St Paul mayor (4.00 / 1)
not Minneapolis
Damn Dirty Hippies! (4.00 / 5)
Serves them right.  Funny to watch them squirm when real men show them who's boss!  Watch how Amy Goodman provokes God fearing officers with her devious, witchy ways:


Clearly the StP/Mini Police want to displace the NYPD (4.00 / 2)
as biggest band of morons ever. Arrested Amy Goodman? that's hilarious, did they just pluck these meat heads from the corn field? Do they know what a press credential looks like?

SP-PD, Way-sting mon-ey.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
St. Paul, not Minneapolis police (4.00 / 1)
There might be some Mpls police here, but I think that the St. Paul police/Ramsey Cty Sheriff have operational control.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some "embedded" Secret Service agents in this just to make sure that the jackboots landed hard.

FWIW, the pictures don't do justice - although please, Matt, keep them coming.  You really have to see the extent of the highway closings, the fencing, the police presence to realize what a thin thread our democracy hangs on.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

[ Parent ]
Well, gosh, it just has to be this way.... (0.00 / 0)
Protesters might drive over a local bridge or something equally dangerous to the public....

In a more serious vein, way back in the day, back during the Seattle demonstrations, a whole lot of the officers on duty were from outside Seattle.  The Auburn, WA police officers that were present then both had and have a particularly bad reputation for abusing whoever they arrest or detain.  I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of the officers on duty are not typically working within the St. Paul or Minneapolis jurisdiction.

[ Parent ]
wouldn't be surprised? (0.00 / 0)
um, at minimum the NYPD and FBI have a strong operational presence. That I know from first hand legal aid people. CIA likely has operations in St/Min too.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
wow (4.00 / 4)
I feel sick to my stomach watching this.  Amy Goodman is a role model and personal hero.  I hope this pisses off a lot of Democracy Now! viewers.
[ Parent ]
There is a Democ Now viewer who isn't pissed off? (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
good point (0.00 / 0)
reality is a pisser, ain't it
[ Parent ]
Iraq and the US (4.00 / 1)
Well, what do you know--Iraq is like a typical American city after all.
paul wellstone (4.00 / 1)
somewhere in the crowds of St. Paul the spirit of Paull Wellstone is reborn.
I can't belive this is my city (4.00 / 4)
I guess I should have expected it but this is not good.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
Well maybe the protesters will each win $40,000 from the subsequent lawsuit... (4.00 / 3)
like they did from the NYC 2004 demonstrations. "NYC Agrees to Pay 52 Antiwar Protesters $2 Million".
Stay Safe. (4.00 / 2)
This is ridiculous and silly, but those are real sticks they carry. Mark my words peoples lives will be ruined in this. More than an over-reaction, this demonstrates to what degree the armed portions of our society have been prepared for, have come to expect, irrational violence. Going down the street in groups, chanting, is non-standard behavior for police.

The application of civil authority is misplaced.

I hope the state, the government and Federal Offices intervene and that Candidate McCain repudiate this usurpation of American civil rights. Loud ugly mouthy people are petty American!

This ain't China!

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

two remarks (4.00 / 2)
1. if you think the Federal government, or McCain, are going to say anything negative about the brave men and women who are fighting terrorists in the streets of St. Paul, you are crazy!

2. what is sort of sad is that I don't see an Obama administration doing much about it either. While I think I look forward in many ways to him fixing the economy, etc. etc., Obama has shown repeatedly that he's not the friend of civil liberties that we need after eight years of mania. I think we will have to look for Congress (and our State governments, and local ones) for that.

3. I think there is a lot of "signalling" down the food chain on this kind of thing. The cavalier attitude shown towards the civil rights of Americans by the White House and by Congress is filtering down; when the "greatest city", New York beat protesters and put them into "preventative detention", that filtered down.

Now any asshole with a hotline to a SWAT team realizes that he can play dictator without consequence.

[ Parent ]
I see nothing to indicate you are correct on any manner. (0.00 / 0)
The court case awarding $2,000,000.00 to protesters cited above is a good example. City governments don't their Chiefs of Police costing their city that kind of money while assaulting children.

I remind readers.

Pretending that force is necessary(TM) is the Republican Brand. But this isn't Red America, or even blue America, this is the United States of America and this cannot be allowed. Acceptance, even cynical acceptance of this behavior is defeat and cowardice.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
$2,000,000? Pocket change apparently, (0.00 / 0)
since all sorts of NYC business people want Bloomberg to try to overturn term limits and run for a third term.
[ Parent ]
Imagine if the refrain was "Come to st.paul and if the police assualt you get $40,000.00 (0.00 / 0)
otherwise its just a day protesting the people who have almost ruined America. I think you could sell tickets. Also the third and forth time a city uses its Police like thugs the awards will be higher. Bloomberg could be very expensive to the voters of New York.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Shocking (4.00 / 1)
Dude, Take care of yourself.  I don't want to see another shiner on that great mug of yours.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  
This is audio of Amy's Producer explaining the arrest (0.00 / 0)
http://www.indybay.org/uploads...

According to the producer, Amy got involved in trying to get the police to release two DN people. That's when she was arrested. It's called obstruction of justice. "Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police..." Even her producer admits on the audio that there have been "breakaway marches" and "direct action" and "confrontations with police". There are people among the more peaceful protesters who want this type of thing. They want the cops to crack down. They are getting what they want.

i am not sure what you're saying (0.00 / 0)
(a) that the police had the legal right to arrest Goodman?

(b) that they should have arrested her?

(c) that there are many peaceful protesters who support Goodman's arrest?

(d) that there's a connection between Goodman and violence at the convention?

I think you could probably get a court to declare (a) -- it's a judgment call, of course, the video is pretty damming of the police, and Goodman hardly looks like a credible threat. Under any normative sense of "legal right", you're totally wrong.

As for (b), (c) and (d), I think you're crazy? Or sometrollhing?

[ Parent ]
Please explain this (0.00 / 1)
Obama has shown repeatedly that he's not the friend of civil liberties that we need after eight years of mania.

Your bio says a university researcher. What do you research?

I have some background in criminal justice and civil liberties issues. I have worked in these fields on and off for over 20 years. As for the rest of your comments, I'll chalk it up to your misfire on FIRE. For a Quaker, you do seem to go off half cocked a bit.

[ Parent ]
physics (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for asking. My turn: which are you asserting: a, b, c, or d?
[ Parent ]
Stick to the Issue (4.00 / 1)
Your personal attacks are out of line.
[ Parent ]
In Response (0.00 / 0)
(a) [Am I suggesting] that the police had the legal right to arrest Goodman?

Yes. They also had complete discretion in how they chose to handle it. They chose to enforce the law.


(b) that they should have arrested her?

See above: They chose to enforce the law and make an arrest.

(c) that there are many peaceful protesters who support Goodman's arrest?

Irrelevant. And how would I know? I'm sure there were a few non-peaceful protesters that were hoping someone like that would be arrested. Not sure what purpose they think it would serve. Journalists are not above the law either.

(d) that there's a connection between Goodman and violence at the convention?

I never suggested that. Are you on some type of psychotropic medication?

I think you could probably get a court to declare (a) -- it's a judgment call, of course, the video is pretty damming of the police, and Goodman hardly looks like a credible threat. Under any normative sense of "legal right", you're totally wrong.

Are you a lawyer?

As for (b), (c) and (d), I think you're crazy? Or sometrollhing?

Are you a physician, too?

[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)
Your point is that the police had discretion to arrest; I agreed, but felt your comment was confusing. As far as I can tell -- your answer was more rude than clear --  you didn't mean to assert b, c or d. It would have been enough to say "sorry, I was being unclear, I didn't mean b, c, or d."

As for teasing me for the FIRE thing: being slimed on right-wing blogs was a very unpleasant experience, and I did my best to limit the damage. It was upsetting, and it's upsetting that you chose to mock me for it.

I am a little confused; I suppose I shouldn't have implied you were trolling -- and I checked your comment history -- you didn't (as I thought) just show up to be rude, impress people with your "twenty years of experience in criminal law", and claim that Amy Goodman was a whiner who deserved to be treated as she was.

[ Parent ]
"your answer was more rude than clear" (0.00 / 0)
See:

As for (b), (c) and (d), I think you're crazy? Or sometrollhing?

Yes. You are a little confused.

I think we are done here. Standards have obviously gotten worse since I attended university.

[ Parent ]
Let me put it to you as simply and succinctly as I can (0.00 / 0)
If you want to negotiate with a policeman...

Take a hostage. Otherwise, shut up and follow the "lawful order".

Anything else and you are guilty of contempt of cop.

[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 1)
how about a pitched battle between homeless people/squatters trying to live in a park and the police as representatives of the goverment of new york city?  Who did you side with during the Tompkins Square Riots?
[ Parent ]
On second thought (0.00 / 0)
(d) that there's a connection between Goodman and violence at the convention?

There is a word can look up in your university library:

Epideictic.

As to whether or not I'm "sometrollhing?" (sic)...

Paul Rosenberg, who is a front page poster here, can probably vouch for me. As to whether he will or not, that may just depend of the question of whether just one or both of us might be crazy.

[ Parent ]
there is a fragment of self-deprecating humor here (0.00 / 0)
that sort of cheered me up. I'm sorry we rubbed each other the wrong away and agree it's best to part company.
[ Parent ]
No harm done (0.00 / 0)
I'm only here to give you all the benefit of my twenty (plus) years of experience...
[ Parent ]
i always forget (0.00 / 0)
If you argue with a lawyer -- about anything, really -- be prepared. They come out swinging, no hold barred. I suppose it's a negative consequence of an overall good (the adversarial system).

I would imagine that in a theocracy, the officials would reason patiently, explain carefully, and by the time they set you on fire, you'd know exactly why they were doing it.

[ Parent ]
I don't want to leave anyone (4.00 / 1)
with the impression I am an attorney. I am not. I majored in Criminal Justice, which is an inter-disciplinary field of study in the behaviorial and social sciences, with the same 1L criminal law component any first year law student would get. I spent a number of years working with the ACLU and other organizations in SF relating to policing and civil liberties issues. I have litigated cases in superior court, but only in pro per. Usually I hire an attorney. I know enough of them. And that's all I have to say but I will leave you with this bit of wisdom from one of my mentors, NLG member Chip Berlet. It is an excerpt from a piece entitled "Abstaining From Bad Sects" that he wrote in 1999 for RESIST and it sums up my feelings about the few rotten apples creating trouble in St. Paul:

Ultra-leftism is an egocentric form of mythopoetic martyrdom whereby practitioners anoint themselves as the beleaguered guardians of the one true political line. They read long impenetrable manifestos at public meetings. They show up at mass demonstrations with helmets and hockey sticks for a game of self-fulfilling prophecy that often results in violence as they hurl themselves at police. They inevitably urge a course of action that is hopelessly out of touch with reality. Even Lenin called this an "infantile disorder."

http://www.resistinc.org/newsl...

You should read the whole thing but I think he nails them to a "T". (pun intended)

[ Parent ]
dude you can't indict entire ideologies (4.00 / 1)
on the basis of what people who are smart leftists would criticize as "adventurism."  Especially while you're making excuses for cops, people it is very important to challenge in the appropriate ways if you have the privilege of being able to do so without getting shot 60 times.
[ Parent ]
Not the entire ideology, just a bloc within it (0.00 / 0)
http://flag.blackened.net/revo...

I've been to many street protests and I'm relatively certain that not every single one of these folks is a cop playing dress-up.

This kind of violence can (and, indeed, already IS) being used to cover-up/justify the heavy-handed tactics by the cops in StP.

I'm just trying to provide information, here.  I'm not taking a stand on whether such violence in protests is a good idea.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
yeah i agree that there are instigators (0.00 / 0)
but i think we have to take more serious thought in to what "instigators" are - the ways in which they challenge power, the ways in which "peaceful protestors" challenge power and ultimately the meaning of protest.  It's fine, I think to analyze strategic and tactical efficiency towards goals, but i think it's an entirely different matter when its overlaid with liberal political beliefs that may or may not be applicable.  If you're in Pakistan, you might (or might not) want to make a strong liberal argument for civil discourse.  If you live in the UNited States, with a history of supressing radicalism and anything that goes outside of the state limits on protest and an enormously entrenched and stable state, it's worth looking at more closely and with solid information before coming to definitive conclusions - especially those that rely on the conventional "liberal" split between "good protestors" (who are obedient) and "bad" protests (who break laws, inflict property damage (WHICH IS NOT VIOLENCE), and other types of illegal activity - like downloading movies for enjoyment and protest).

And consider the context of who's there - it's different if it's black people assembling, if its women assembling, if its undocumented people assembling, if its white people assembling, etc. etc. etc.

[ Parent ]
I did not intend to use "good" or "bad" labels for the protesters (0.00 / 0)
Along the lines of your comment:

"It's fine, I think to analyze strategic and tactical efficiency towards goals, but i think it's an entirely different matter when its overlaid with liberal political beliefs that may or may not be applicable. "

My opinion is that the direct actions of the alleged Black Bloc tactics are not applicable in StP at the RNC. You may have already noticed that the link I supplied focuses on WTO protests, where I think such tactics are more justified. That's just my opinion.

Thus far, most of the local media (I live in Minneapolis) has done a fairly good job of differentiating the groups of protesters. The property damage has been cast as the actions of a "splinter" group and not used (yet) to paint a negative picture of the entire anti-GOP, anti-war protest.  

Time will tell how it plays out, but I truly hope that the rest of the protests offer us many more pictures of peaceful, non-destructive marchers being herded by cops in their storm-trooper get-up, than they do of folks wearing bandanas smashing windows and lighting fires.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
fair enough (0.00 / 0)
and i didn't mean to imply that you personally were explicitly using good or bad.  however, I think that it's implicit in "peacful, non-destructive" vs. "folks wearing bandanas smashing windows and lighting fires."  I think the question is why the latter is doing the latter (effectiveness of tactics), since they aren't attacking people, right?  One of the biggest ploys that's been pulled is the equation of property destruction with violence and by implication with violence against people.

on the effectiveness of the question - at a national level,  how does it damage obama's chances if the republican  convention appears as chaotic as the democratic one in 1968?  Or demonstrates police abuses against nonviolent protesters?  How did shutting down streets in Washington DC at the IMF protest do anything other than getting a few concessions on AIDS funding (and a small amount at that).

[ Parent ]
I see those as descriptions (4.00 / 1)
some protesters are "non-destructive" and others "smash windows", how one classifies such into "good" or "bad" is another question.

I'm not certain why some people use more destructive means - I tend to the non-destructive myself. Yesterday, I had no chance to engage any of the window-smashers; they were all detained, or dispersed by the time I got to the march.  Last time I encountered a Black Bloc was in DC.  I was shooting some video for a public access TV show I used to produce and tried to get a couple of them to talk with me about their goals and purpose, but they were not in a talkative mood.  I guess they didn't like my tie-dye shirt, even though the black and red colors fit their group perfectly. I gotta say, I felt more threatened by them, than I did by the armored police sitting on armored horses. These were not a particularly destructive Bloc, they were perfectly happy to have a more symbolic demonstration. They did not march in the prescribed area and often marched against the general flow of the other marchers and their vocal, derrogatory slogans were as much aimed at the cops, as at the "hippies", i.e. people not wearing black clothes, or masks.

Are these tactics effective?  At anti-war protests, I have to say "no", because they don't evoke peace. Plus, they give the cops an excuse to arrest and hassle the non-destructive marchers. Non-destructive protests are somewhat more effective (perhaps) because they sometimes get positive coverage in the M$M which can, to some extent, spread the message that there is actual dissent in the populace. Although, on the whole, political protest in US streets is rather ineffective. Compare our pitiful response to the 2000 "electile dysfunction" and the Ukrainian Orange Revolution, for example.

For protests with a more anti-capitalist theme, destroying property is effective in the sense that it exacts an economic cost (however minimal) upon the corporations they target. This may cause some of their employees to reconsider their employment options, too. Attacking the barricades and taking on the cops more directly (overturning cars, or tossing the tear-gas back at them) provides a real-time demonstration that it may not be necessary to march between the lines (if you get my drift). But, will it ever change the system and institutions they oppose?  I doubt it. No US government, or World Trade Organization could seriously believe that any Black Bloc action could produce a coup, for instance.

I admit to misusing the word "violent", thanks for pointing it out. I try not to be so sloppy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see these protests as a McCain vs. Obama thing.  Its about the war and the fact that poor people gotta fight a rich man's war, then will not be afforded a just society upon their return. I do not believe that the protests effect the Obama campaign one way, or another. Unless, of course, he marched in the streets with us, or spoke at the rallies, which I don't see him doing.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
well this is a problem in the radidal left strategizing a lot of times :) (0.00 / 0)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see these protests as a McCain vs. Obama thing.  Its about the war and the fact that poor people gotta fight a rich man's war, then will not be afforded a just society upon their return. I do not believe that the protests effect the Obama campaign one way, or another. Unless, of course, he marched in the streets with us, or spoke at the rallies, which I don't see him doing.  

Sometimes people dont pay attention to the difference between their intention and how they'll be perceived :)  but thank you so much for the thoughtful comment - it was really interesting and, well i don't know another word for it than heartfelt :)

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I try.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Which Law? (0.00 / 0)
Which law exactly did Amy Goodman break? They haven't charged her with breaking any laws. Don't you think if she broke a law, she would have been charged with breaking a law?
[ Parent ]
for information (4.00 / 1)
I am not a lawyer and don't know anything about the law.  Just to understand, I would like to ask about a pure hypothetical related to point a) "complete discretion" and ""Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police..."

Let's imagine the following purely fictional story.

A police officer walks into a jewelry store, declares the owner under arrest, handcuffs him and begins stuffing his pockets with jewelry.

A passing citizen says "You should not do that officer.  You are supposed to enforce the law not break it.  You are acting as a robber not as a cop"

A second police officer who also happens to be passing by arrests the citizen for "obstruction of justice" and then arrests the 1st police officer for theft.

Was the first of these arrests legitimate under the second police officer's complete discretion ?  

It seems to me that it shouldn't be as 1) the citizen was not interfering with legitimate police work and 2) no reasonable person would interpret the actions with which the citizen interfered (by objecting in a normal conversational tone of voice as Amy Goodman did) as legitimate police work.

I would consider the arrest of the citizen by the second police officer to be misconduct because there wasn't probable cause to believe that the citizen was breaking the law.  

Now I have 2 questions (really for information)

first, am I wrong about my hypothetical ?  Is it within the discretion of a police officer to arrest a citizen for politely criticizing clearly criminal conduct by another  police officer in uniform ?

Second, is there a material difference between my hypothetical and the case of Amy Goodman ?

My guess on the second is no.  That the producers were arrested for videotaping in public (one was videotaping. is it humanly possible to riot while videotaping ?) by police officer who wanted to suppress a record of their actions when on duty.  That's not like robbing a jewelry store, but it doesn't seem to me to be legitimate police work either.  Or is it allowed to object to clearly criminal acts but not to arguable abuse of office ?  Or what ?


[ Parent ]
Chris Coleman (4.00 / 1)
It is Chris Coleman who is responsible for the armed camp that is Saint Paul today; Harrington would not be doing this without the explicit orders of Chris Coleman.  
MSNBC reporting that Bush will speak in primetime tomorrow (0.00 / 0)
to the convention.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008
"possibly" and by satellite (0.00 / 0)
Also saying that Hanna may make landfall in FL during McCain's speech on Thursday.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008
[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)

It is Chris Coleman who is responsible for the armed camp that is Saint Paul today; Harrington would not be doing this without the explicit orders of Chris Coleman.

He's a Democrat, and he is decidedly not a Bush Democrat. He defeated the previous mayor because that guy was a Bush Democrat. We make a big deal about the rule of law and how Bush seems to pick and choose what laws he wants to observe, obstructs justice at every chance. I am quite familiar with Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience, even his defense of John Brown but the law is the law and if a certain minority of those protesting were intent on violating the law and engaging in criminal acts, I'm not sure what you expect them to do. Should they turn a blind eye? That might open the city up to charges of negligence and lawsuits.

sycophantic journalists asking about damage estimates and calling him 'chief' to get his attention to heroic uniformed sternly worded descriptions of frightening protesters throwing rocks at officers.  The end literally was the PR officer walking out of the room in a dramatic huff.

I'm not sure what to make of this, Matt. Are you suggesting there has been no willful and malicious damage to private property or that none of the protesters are actually throwing rocks at the police?

to answer your question (0.00 / 0)
"I am quite familiar with Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience, even his defense of John Brown but the law is the law and if a certain minority of those protesting were intent on violating the law and engaging in criminal acts, I'm not sure what you expect them to do. Should they turn a blind eye?"

so what would it take for you to actually criticize the police for something?

[ Parent ]
I criticize the police all the time (0.00 / 0)
That's how I became interested in criminal justice and went to a university with one of the the best CJ departments in the country so I could study it, and then I worked in the field for 20 years, not as a cop but in community organizing  police community relations. Can you say you are in a position, based on your education, background and experience to make judgments about policing?
[ Parent ]
we're playing street cred? (4.00 / 3)
I was:

a) detained and questioned on a subway platform in New York, handcuffs and all, after attempting to observe two other people get arrested by plain clothes for having a small amount of marijuana on them.  they were originally stopped for jumping a turnstile, searched, and then arrested for the drugs.  Thanks Giuliani.

My arrest was based on the fact that I was watching quietly two other people get arrested ("obstructing public administration" in the words of the cops) and not complying quickly enough with police orders, though I was some distance away, it was a perfectly ordinary night, it was as public a space as you can get, there was no threat presented to the police, and aside from the fact that they were arresting people, there was literally no evidence that these plain-clothes people actually were police offers.

Incidentally, someone else was threatened with detention watching me get detained watching these two other people get arrested.

After reporting this to the ineffectual-by-design "Civilian Complaint Review Board" (which is headed by mayoral or police officials or some such things) which decided that what I had said was accurate but that the police were within their rights to do what they did.  You decide what to make of that.

b) I grew up near New York, watching stories on the news about the Tompkins Square riots, Giuliani Time, broken windows theory, Abner Louiama, and other incidents.  I have bought DVDs on the street and been surprised that the person selling them was not afraid of getting caught but simply wanted to respect the police as part of a fairly mutual arrangement.

c) I have  been searched on the street in London as part of anti-terrorism searches.  I was asked my address, what  I was doing in th eneighborhood, among other things.

d) I have been denied permission to walk across a bridge I had just crossed because i was doing freelance journalism of an immigrant rights march but didn't have credentials.

e) I worked on immigarnt issues for several years, and attempted to address on a policy level and followed development in local police enforcement of immigarnt law (which most police departments i know of that actually deal with immigrant communities oppose), use of the NCIC, the use of criminal law to assist in the 2 million deportations since 1996, etc.  I still have friends who work extremely closely wtih people who are in jails for criminal justice offences and immigration offenses related to criminal justice.  I have also witnessed "community leaders" in communities like New York's Pakistani neighborhoods collaborating in setting up relations with the FBI at a time and provide community access for the FBI when the FBI was using the number of mosques in an area to determine how many counterterrorism resources to put there.

f) I'm also aware that one of the reasons for the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany, according to some authors, was the failure of the Socialist Democratic party to assume policing functions in the state.  So obviously policing has a role.

g) I've also been robbed in London (thankfuollly fairly harmlessly), but because I heard stories of how the police failed to treat my friend's brother's medical wounds after she had been mugged and attacked and instead drove her and her brother around to groups of rounded up Black guys.   As a result, I am still considering, weeks later, whether i want to report the mugging I had, for a variety of reasons, one of which may be that I don't want to bolster  the London government / police's attempt to start Giuliani Time here.

h) I have seen police using their power to add to their income informally (minor "corruption") in Delhi.  I am also aware that when there's a car accident in Calcutta, the drivers are usually pulled out of their cars and beaten (often to death) and this happens regularly - so it's a complicated issue to try to understand policing in that context.

i) I've been an activist and read Piven and Cloward, Marx, Foucault, and Gramsci and understand that REAL social disruption will always trigger a real reaction, as opposed to demonstrations that government / the powers that be don't feel threatened by.  This can be anything from flooding welfare offices (god rest their soul) with applications to having an unpermitted demonstration.  I have been to prefab demonstrations with cordial agreements between the police and the protestors (including arrests - very different from the kind Amy Goodman experienced) and while they work to some extent for the people involved and raising issues in the context of the hegemony that Americans exist in, I wonder the extent to which they actually challenge anything politically.

To argue that the police are the ones that need to be defended in these situations (as agents of the state) rather than looking closely at the efficacy of the strategies chosen by the protesting groups (who can be from across the political spectrum) and looking at the responses of the police (and vice versa) is absurd in my opinion.  

Want me to go on?  Are we done here with the credibility game?  Will you answer my question now as to what level of misconduct police have to engage in before you'll actually criticize them and what you'll say?  Do they have to shoot people?  Just round them up indiscriminately?  Trample on people's rights?  engage in activities that hamper effective policing? It's the crucial question for "liberals" and "progressives" - when the shit hits  the fan, what do you do?  When the war was declared in 2003, and I had to wonder whether I would be a victim of a hate crime or whether i would be profiled by the police, I  think that isn't a choice that I think people should have to face.  

Don't get me wrong - though I often don't like police as a kneejerk reaction based on who I am and what MY experiences are- I know they're people who are doing jobs in the service of higher interests and I have the alternate experience of growin up in the suburbs and relying on the people (Even when they chased us out of parks).  I also know that there are gender dimensions added to the pwoer issues, issues of sexuality, how to interact with agencies that can serve some useful role but at the end of the day (at least in new york) have proved themselves in many instances to be accountable to the state and selective in their disbursement of abuse by race, immigration status, gender, and other tools.

And at the end of the day, they're also people with guns - and as they say for v for vendetta - "What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?"  And for you to offer bland pro-police sentiment in a situaiton like this obscures the more complicated issues involved despite that for those of us outside of Minneapolis the issue is hard to grasp fully except on the basis of our preconceptions because we're not there.  

Your approach in this conversation---which stylewise has frequenlty relied on 'experitise' and being rude to other commenters and other objectionable areas--frankly, offensive to even someone like me that has borne a minimal amount of police abuse, has benefited from the protection of the government in myriad ways (liike not ever having to face the possibility of needing to join the army or police), and believes strongle in human liberties (human rights, not civil rights).

If nothing else, stop playing the "I have a right to talk and you don't" card - it's profuoudnly inegalitarian and devalues that different people have different perspectives and this kind of talk elevates some on the basis of power, and not the content of their character.

;

[ Parent ]
Amy Goodman and her producers were intent (0.00 / 0)
"on violating the law and engaging in criminal acts"? Can you please provide me with evidence of that? You are conflating two entirely different sets of people to defend a group of thugs in uniforms. Roughing up accredited journalists with full credentials, or peaceful protesters, is ok with you in the name of "law and order"? Are you trying to be the next Chris Hitchins? Pushing this crap on Greenwald wasn't enough for you so you had to drag it over here?

Pathetic.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You can't read, Kovie (0.00 / 0)
You've been hanging out at Greenwald's too long. Even sdedeo "got it".

Try rereading and find me the passage where I claimed Amy Goodman and her producers were intent "on violating the law and engaging in criminal acts" and then get back to me when you actually have some clue about all this. I realize I erred in thinking Glenn may have understood this sort of thing better. I was mistaken. It's not really his area of the law. Criminal law. You also assume I am making a value judgment here. My analysis is wertfrei. As a pragmatist, I happen to agree with it.

[ Parent ]
And you can't write, LWM (0.00 / 0)
Which is perhaps why you "argue" by quote so often.

You justify such extreme police action because MAYBE a few truly radical types actually intend to commit violence, and there's credible evidence of it. Fine. Let's say that that's true. But I ask again, how does that justify what happened to the vast majority of peaceful would-be protesters and the journalists and activists who tried to document what was happening? I'm not talking about these alleged violent types--nor is ANYONE else. I'm talking about the peaceful ones--as is EVERYONE else. Your weak attempts to misdirect convince no one, and are quite sad. Stand down before you make a further fool of yourself.

Let me make this very simple for you with an example.

Crowd of people standing around. Someone pulls out a gun. Cop sees this, and sprays the crowd with bullets, taking down the guy plus 10 more. This is what is known as massive overreaction and abuse of power. Perhaps not the correct legal terms, but in no way, shape or form justifiable. And it's analogous to what happened in Minneapolis this weekend. Massive overreaction to POSSIBLE violence by a SMALL group of radicals that was abusive of state power and a violation of the civil rights of everyone else who did NOTHING to warrant such treatment. The law is not empowered to conduct blanket raids of this nature. Any judge who signed alleged warrants to do this is dirty.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Including the perps. So stop defending fascism.

Like I said, another would-be Chris Hitchins.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Too many commentors on this post refuse to remember (4.00 / 2)
That agent provocateurs are just if not more likely to be the ones behind the masks as ego-ridden martyrs of "the left"

You can google examples of recent history, not so recent history and foriegn history and todays news. The great majoirity of protesters were moms and dads and kids who want to say "Not in my name." and "Stop now you aren't fooling anyone anymore."

It is a little disappointing that people who, who if the rest of US were as brave, would have already been successful at, trying to stop appalling government crimes. These are brave Americans, these moms and dads in Matt's Pictures, doing what our founding fathers called on us all to be like.

The agent provocateurs, of the right and the left, will not stop them.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

I understand that they had spies planted within these groups (0.00 / 0)
So it's not a huge leap of faith to believe that they also had active agent provacateurs in them as well. These are classic civil rights riots tactics. They studied the Gestapo handbook well.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
yeah or nypd's - or the michigan police force that planted an office in a student anti-sweatshop group (0.00 / 0)
need i go on?
[ Parent ]
I can never quite figure out (4.00 / 1)
If they do this because:

--They have all these great toys and love playing Rambo with it, because it makes them feel all manly and studly and cool.

--They want to push the Overton Window further towards the fascist right, to both condition regular citizens and the media to view and treat this as SOP and necessary to uphold law and order, and to scare would-be protesters, activists and dissenters from doing anything even mildly oppositional, beyond posting blog comments.

--They have all this pent-up anger against the left that hasn't really subsided since the 50's, that they need to let out now and then to stay "regular".

--They actually, genuinely, crap their pants fear the commie pinko left as geniune revolutionaries who literally want to violently overthrow the guvment, and believe that they are literally the only thinking standing in their way.

I'm guessing that broadly speaking, it's all of these. I keep picturing that abusive but ultimately cowardly cop in Thelma and Louise when I think of these assholes. Or the Rodney King beating. Or Louima and Diallou. Or Bull Connor's dogs and fire hoses. Or Kristalnacht (being Jewish, it's impossible not to). Or, well, the list is endless.

Ultimately, though, my takeaway is always the same: what next, what's the recourse, what is to be done, beyond venting? How do we make these people pay for their actions, understand that there are and must be consequences for them, and make it harder and harder for them to keep doing this? Because if we can't, it's all over, whoever's in power.

And I just love the Dems' deafening silence on this. Can't be seen as siding with those crazy violent radical lefties, of course. It just wouldn't do. Better to grant these thugs retroactive immunity and censure MoveOn.org. From the great beyond, Nixon smiles. He has still won.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

blame the people who give the orders (0.00 / 0)
blame the mayor who won't allow a permit to march to hundreds of thousands of police, fueling police-protestor problems (2003)
blame the national immigartion officials and state governors who are trying to get local and state police - often against their better budgement - to engage in tasks that are not their job and that are wrong and that are actually getting in the way of their real jobs - which is public safety at a local level.
blame the 'academics' of the world like the manhattan institute who come up with crap like the broken windows theory.
blame the rush limbaughs of the world who will defend violent abuses by the police as long as it meets his agenda and he has nothing to lose.

and at the end of the day, we can attribute some responsibility to some of the people who are people that act inappropriately not because they've been put in a difficult situation, but because they buy into their power too much or because they are sadists.

think of it as analogous to how you understand abu ghraib and what troops in iraq go through, though on a much lesser scale of violence (most of the time).

[ Parent ]
Welcome to St. Paul | 62 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox